2300 E Katella Avenue, Suite 125
Anaheim, CA 92806
NCE Project No. 879.02.30
Draft Report
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
City of Riverside, CA
City of Riverside
Riverside Public Works Department
3900 Main St #4
Riverside, CA 92522
February 2025
Draft Report
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
City of Riverside, CA
February 2025
Prepared for:
City of Riverside
Riverside Public Works Department
3900 Main St #4
Riverside, CA 92522
Prepared by:
Name: Mahmoud Samara, MS, EIT
Title: Project Pavement Engineer I
Name: Debaroti Ghosh, PhD
Title: Project Pavement Engineer II
Name: Vivek Jha, MS, PE (MD)
Title: Project Manager
Name: Margot Yapp, MS, PE
Title: Principal
NCE
2300 E Katella Ave, Suite 125
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 848-8897
NCE Project No. 879.02.30
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Executive Summary City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
ES-1
Executive Summary
Public agencies and utility providers have been investigating the effects of utility cuts on pavement performance for over 30 years in order to quantify their impact on streets and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.
However, to fully understand the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance for a particular agency, site- specific studies and analyses must be performed.
To fully understand the impact of utility cuts on pavements in the City of Riverside (City), develop an appropriate fee schedule to recover costs associated with such damage, and compare that fee schedule with typical fees charged by similar California agencies, NCE reviewed relevant studies and investigated the structural and functional deterioration of pavements due to utility cuts.
NCE used field evaluations to examine pavement deterioration, which included analysis of functional and structural damage at 30 different sites within the City. The selected field sites had varying functional classes and conditions (Pavement Condition Index [PCI]). NCE used a falling weight deflectometer to assess loss of structural capacity due to cuts at the sites, and surveyed pavement conditions to assess functional damage.
The findings from this study include:
• Ninety-seven percent of the test sites were either structurally or functionally damaged by utility cuts.
Seventy-three percent of the test sites had both structural and functional damage. • Utility cuts cause structural damage to pavements. An average overlay thickness of 4 inches is needed to compensate for the loss in structural capacity.
• Overall, pavements with cuts deteriorate more rapidly than pavements without cuts. An average condition reduction of 18 PCI points was observed when utility cuts were present. • Thirty percent of the test sites displayed damage beyond the edge of the cut, known as the "Zone of Influence (2 ft outside the edge of the cut/T-arm).
These findings were used to develop the following fee schedule for the City:
Functional Class PCI Group Fees ($/SF*)
Arterials/Collectors
PCI ≥ 60 $ 5.00
25 ≤ PCI < 60 $ 3.50
PCI < 25 $ 0.00
Residentials
PCI ≥ 70 $ 4.50
25 ≤ PCI < 70 $ 3.50
PCI < 25 $ 0.00
* The total square footage includes the zone of influence (2 ft outside the edge of the cut/T-arm).
The information required to implement this fee schedule includes the functional class of the pavement section, the PCI of the section at the time of cut, and the trench dimensions. Because the City seeks to implement fair and appropriate fee programs, streets with a functional classification of Very Poor will not incur a fee.
Furthermore, NCE recommends that the fee schedule be indexed to inflation and annually adjusted to reflect increases in repair costs.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Table of Contents City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Damage Mechanisms ................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 5 2 Technical Approach ................................................................................................................. 6 3 Field Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Functional Deterioration ........................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Structural Deterioration .......................................................................................................... 15 4 Fee Development................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Fee Comparison by Evaluation Type ....................................................................................... 22
4.3 Fee Implementation ................................................................................................................ 22
4.4 Fee Comparison with Other Agencies .................................................................................... 23 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 25 6 References ............................................................................................................................. 26
List of Figures
Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Example Test Site ............................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 4. Comparison of PCIs of Pavement Sections With and Without Utility Cuts .................................. 11 Figure 5. Propagating Cracks (Highlighted) Near Patch on Indiana Avenue ............................................... 11 Figure 6. Pavement Deterioration Curves for City Streets .......................................................................... 12 Figure 7. PCI for Sections Without Utility Cuts vs. Percent Reduction in Service Life ................................. 13 Figure 8. Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Locations .......................................................................... 15 Figure 9. Deflection Trends Organized by PCI of Sections Without Utility Cuts ......................................... 16 Figure 10. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Buchanan Street.............................................. 17 Figure 11. Differences in Overlay Thickness ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 12. Examples of Fee Implementation for Typical 750'x30' Residential Street with PCI ≥ 70. .......... 23
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Table of Contents City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Pavement Condition Categories ...................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Test Sites With and Without Cut Functional Damage ................................................................... 10 Table 3. Percent Reduction in Service Life and Equivalent Damage Cost ................................................... 14 Table 4. Additional Overlay Thickness and Corresponding Equivalent Cost ............................................... 19 Table 5. Damage Control Location Assessment .......................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Statistical Analysis of Field Evaluation ........................................................................................... 21 Table 7. Fee ($/SF) Comparison Based on Evaluation ................................................................................. 22 Table 8. Utility Cut Fee Comparisons .......................................................................................................... 24
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
Appendix B
City’s Traffic Index (TI) Map
Appendix C
City’s Utility Cut Restoration Standards
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Introduction City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
3 1 Introduction
Utility providers often need to cut existing pavements to access and service their underground facilities. Over the last 30 years, local agencies have sought answers to the following questions:
• How do utility cuts affect pavement performance?
• If pavement performance is affected, what is the corresponding financial impact? To answer these questions, public agencies and utility providers have sponsored engineering studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Studies of utility cut impacts often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analysis to quantify the impacts of performance. The performance impacts are typically expressed as a loss in structural capacity and/or a decrease in pavement condition, and to manage them, many studies have recommended restoring areas surrounding the cut, increasing overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on utility providers.
These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in the number of public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life through utility cut fees, and 2) establish rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no-cut” periods to achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance.
The impact of utility cuts varies with:
• Existing pavement condition, structure, and age.
• Location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut. • Environmental factors.
• Traffic loads.
• Restoration practices and standards.
• Local maintenance treatments and their costs.
Utility cut impacts can vary significantly among sites and agencies, and existing studies are often performed in- house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. Because of this, site- specific studies and analyses are necessary to understand the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance for a particular agency.
The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of pavement sections with and without utility cuts in the City of Riverside (City), quantify the damage, if any, caused by the cuts, and develop a fee schedule for the City to recover any costs associated with such damage.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Introduction City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
4 1.1 Damage Mechanisms
Underground utility work can damage pavements in 3 general ways (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
First, cutting a pavement structure creates an entry point for water, which can damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, removing pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally, particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, repairing the pavement can introduce roughness if the patch/restored cut does not closely match the adjacent pavement structure. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which increases loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995, Wilde et al. 2002). These mechanisms can reduce the condition and structural capacity of pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut, which reduces its service life (Stevens et al. 2010).
Having multiple pavement utility cuts on the same street can magnify their negative impact (San Francisco Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995). Pavement networks are typically divided into management sections, each of which represents a portion of a street that has the same construction history, traffic, and structure along its length. The PCI calculation methodology in ASTM D 6433, indicates that individual or collective medium severity cuts constituting 10 percent of a management section’s area will cause the PCI for the entire management section to drop, even if no other distresses are present, from excellent condition (PCI of 100) into fair condition (PCI of 69). Based on typical local agency decision trees, this PCI reduction triggers the need for mill and overlay or other rehabilitation treatment. Although only the cut area and adjacent zone of influence is directly damaged, the damaged area affects the condition and management of the entire management section, and any rehabilitation treatment would typically be done on the entire management section.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Introduction City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
5 1.2 Literature Review
Researchers have used falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance (Chow and Troyan 1999, Jensen et al. 2005). These tests have shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, resulting in millions of dollars in costs to local agencies for premature street repairs and remediation (Dunn et al. 2024, Ghosh et al. 2024). In addition, underground utility work often affects not only the excavated area, but the adjacent pavement (Chow and Troyan 1999, Jensen et al. 2005). Typically, pavement 4 – 5 feet from the edges of the trench is affected, though this varies among agencies and locations (Jensen et al. 2005).
Other studies have assessed the damage caused by utility cuts using functional evaluation of pavement conditions. Larger utility cuts have a greater impact on the street than smaller cuts, as treatments cover whole management sections (Dunn et al. 2024, Ghosh et al. 2024). Furthermore, a threshold of 10% of the management section areas was found for the large and small cut (Dunn et al. 2024, Ghosh et al. 2024).
To help restore structural capacity and performance loss due to utility cuts, many agencies have set restoration standards. For example, restoration standards in California typically include a T-cut (saw-cut) along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block. To recover costs associated with this restoration, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on functional classification, pavement age, Pavement Condition Index (PCI), and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).
Appendix A summarizes the literature that details the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance among California agencies, the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and the policies established to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Technical Approach City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
6 2 Technical Approach
Utility cuts can negatively impact pavement structure (strength) and function (service life). For this study, City streets with and without utility cuts were evaluated for structural and functional deterioration, and fees were developed to compensate for both types of damages.
Structural deterioration is evaluated by measuring the overlay thickness needed to reach an acceptable structural capacity under a specified traffic load, usually expressed through the Traffic Index (TI). If a utility cut weakens the pavement structure, then sections with cuts will require a thicker overlay than sections with no cuts. Overlay thickness is calculated from deflection data obtained through FWD testing using the method in the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). Higher deflections represent lower structural capacity and vice versa. Pavements with utility cuts typically have higher deflections than pavements without utility cuts (Dunn et al. 2024). This loss of structural capacity necessitates thicker overlays and increases the cost of rehabilitation for pavement sections with utility cuts.
Functional deterioration is evaluated in terms of PCI, which ranges from 0 to 100 (Table 1). A pavement in excellent condition has a PCI ≥ 85, while a very poor (Failed) pavement has a PCI < 25. The PCI is calculated from pavement distress data collected through visual inspection. Pavement distresses are usually categorized as structural or environmental, and their degree is affected by their severity and quantity. Note that a loss in structural capacity via structural distresses like fatigue cracking or rutting can lead to functional deterioration, which adversely impacts PCI.
Table 1. Pavement Condition Categories
Condition Category* PCI Range
Excellent 85 – 100
Very Good 70 – 84
Good 60 – 69
Fair 50 – 59
Marginal 40 – 49
Poor 25 – 39
Very Poor 0 – 24
*Based on the City’s 2023 pavement management program (PMP) report Pavement function can be evaluated through current field inspections and/or using the inspection history recorded within a pavement management program (PMP) database.
Figure 2 shows the methods used in this study. Both functional and structural deterioration were evaluated in situ.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Technical Approach City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
7 Figure 2. Study Methodology
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
8 3 Field Evaluation
Functional and structural field data were collected at 30 test sites throughout the City. Test sites were selected based on current PCI and functional classification (arterials/collectors and residentials). Each test site included a section with a utility cut (Cut Section) and an adjacent section without a utility cut (No-Cut Section; Figure 3).
Both Cut Sections and No-Cut Sections were typically 100 feet long and at least 1 lane wide and were adjacent to each other to ensure that they had the same pavement structure and experienced the same traffic loads and environmental conditions.
• To evaluate functional deterioration (more details provided in Section 3.1), NCE:
o Surveyed pavement distresses for the Cut and No-Cut Sections per ASTM D6433 standards. o Compared the PCIs of the Cut and No-Cut Sections by functional class. o Calculated the percent reduction in pavement service life associated with utility cuts and compared the impacts across functional classes and PCI groups from the pavement deterioration curves.
• To evaluate structural deterioration (more details provided in Section 3.2), NCE:
o Tested deflection at each site per California Test Method (356). o Extracted cores from each of the No-Cut Sections to measure pavement thickness. o Calculated average pavement deflections and required overlay thicknesses on the cut, the T-arm of the cut, 2 feet away from the cut, and in the No-Cut Section.
Figure 3. Example Test Site
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
9 3.1 Functional Deterioration
The following subsections detail the process and findings related to functional deterioration in this study. This includes gathering distress data, calculating and comparing the PCI values for sections with and without utility cuts, and assessing the resulting reductions in service life from pavement deterioration curve. These data were then used to calculate the corresponding cost of functional damage to pavements caused by utility cuts.
3.1.1 Field Data Collection
NCE surveyed distresses for the Cut and No-Cut Sections at each site. Distress surveys were performed in accordance with ASTM D6433 (ASTM 2020) and included identification of each distress type, its severity, and its extent. The PCIs for all sections were then calculated per ASTM D6433.
3.1.2 PCI Results
Table 2 lists the PCIs for all sections at all test sites. At 93.3% of the test sites, the PCI of the Cut Section was lower than the PCI of the No-Cut Section, suggesting functional deterioration due to utility cuts. This trend is illustrated in Figure 4, with a diagonal line illustrating a 1-to-1 relationship. Data points that fall below the line (red dots) represent sections with functional damage. At 2 sites, the PCI of the Cut Section was equal to or greater than the PCI of the No-Cut Section (blue dots). The Cut Sections at these 2 sites are performing better than the No-Cut Sections because the cut repairs removed some distresses, and existing restorations are performing well.
On average, the PCI of No-Cut Sections was 59, and 41 for Cut Sections, indicating a drop in condition category from Fair to Marginal (Table 1). This average decrease of 18 PCI points is primarily due to the cut itself, but additional longitudinal/transverse/fatigue cracking near cuts also impacts PCI. Figure 5 shows propagating longitudinal/transverse/fatigue cracking near a patch on Indiana Avenue.
3.1.3 Reduction in Service Life
A reduction in PCI corresponds to a reduction in the remaining service life (RSL) of a pavement. A pavement’s RSL is the number of years until it falls into failed condition, i.e., a pavement’s RSL reaches 0 when the PCI drops below or equal to 25. Based on the inspection data that was provided by the City, deterioration cures were developed for the arterials/collectors and residentials as shown in Figure 6. Arterials/collectors have a total service life of approximately 29 years, while residentials have a total service life of approximately 36 years.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
10 Table 2. Test Sites With and Without Cut Functional Damage Functional Class Site Name PCI No-Cut
Section
PCI Cut
Section Functional Damage
Arterials/Collectors
IN 77 44 Yes
AC 75 60 Yes
MS 74 61 Yes
TS 67 52 Yes
MB 61 46 Yes
CA 59 58 Yes
IA 58 60 No
CS 57 54 Yes
PA-1 54 32 Yes
MA 52 29 Yes
PA-2 42 32 Yes
SA 41 27 Yes
ML 36 16 Yes
HA 32 29 Yes
BS 32 33 No
Residentials
PL 85 65 Yes
MI 84 36 Yes
SD 75 24 Yes
KD 74 44 Yes
MO 71 43 Yes
BA-1 69 54 Yes
RS 67 45 Yes
BA-3 62 46 Yes
BU 62 46 Yes
BA-2 61 35 Yes
10S 58 51 Yes
WS 54 47 Yes
ED 52 8 Yes
06S 50 31 Yes
RA 39 30 Yes
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
11 Figure 4. Comparison of PCIs of Pavement Sections With and Without Utility Cuts
Figure 5. Propagating Cracks (Highlighted) Near Patch on Indiana Avenue
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
12 For each test site, the percent reduction in service life due to utility cuts was estimated using the deterioration curves. For instance, the No-Cut Section of the residential Bushnell Avenue (site BA-1) test site had a PCI of 69, which corresponds to a pavement age of 19.4 years based on the family deterioration curve. In contrast, the Cut Section at that same test site had a PCI of 54, which corresponds to an equivalent pavement age of 28.5 years.
This means that the service life of the pavement was reduced by approximately 9.1 years, or 23.0% of its total service life, because of utility cuts. This reduction in service life was calculated for all 30 test sites and plotted relative to the PCIs of the No-Cut Sections (Figure 7). The percent reduction in RSL ranged from 0.0% to 73.0% and was 24.1% on average. One test site showed a negative percent reduction in life, indicating that the Cut Sections are performing better than the No-Cut Sections, because the cut areas have repaired some existing distresses. At one test site there was no difference in condition between the Cut and No-Cut Sections, suggesting that some distresses were removed during the cut/restoration.
Figure 6. Pavement Deterioration Curves for City Streets * RSL: Remaining service life in years.
0 10
1 0
0 0
0 0
70 7
0 0
100
0 10 1 0 0 0 0
Pavement Condi on Index (PCI)
Pavement Age (yrs)
Residen al
Arterial Collector
PCI
RSL 0
at years
RSL 0
at 0 years
PCI
Age . earsAge 1 . ears
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
13 Figure 7. PCI for Sections Without Utility Cuts vs. Percent Reduction in Service Life
3.1.4 Damage Cost
To calculate the costs of the reduction in service life due to utility cuts, the estimated percent reduction in service life was multiplied by typical pavement rehabilitation (2"-3" mill and overlay) cost for the City as obtained from the City’s 2023 PMP report:
• Arterials/Collectors: $62.80 per square yard or $6.98 per square foot • Residentials: $52.60 per square yard or $5.84 per square foot For example, the residential test site on Rivera Street (RS) had a 31% reduction in service life due to a utility cut.
For a residential pavement section, the typical cost of pavement rehabilitation is $5.84 per square foot.
Therefore, the cost corresponding to the reduction in service life due to the cut is $1.81 per square foot (0.31 × $5.84/sq. ft) for the site. Table 3 summarizes the percent reduction in service life due to cuts and the corresponding equivalent cost for all test sites rounded to the nearest 50 cents.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
14 Table 3. Percent Reduction in Service Life and Equivalent Damage Cost Functional Class Site
Name
PCI No-Cut
Section
PCI Cut
Section
% Reduction In
Pavement Life Cost, $/SF
Arterials/Collectors
IN 77 44 51% $4.00
AC 75 60 26% $2.00
MS 74 61 23% $2.00
TS 67 52 23% $2.00
MB 61 46 21% $1.50
CA 59 58 2% $0.50
IA 58 60 -2% $-
CS 57 54 5% $0.50
PA-1 54 32 26% $2.00
MA 52 29 26% $2.00
PA-2 42 32 11% $1.00
SA 41 27 14% $1.00
ML 36 16 18% $1.50
HA 32 29 3% $0.50
BS 32 33 0% $-
Residentials
PL 85 65 39% $2.50
MI 84 36 73% $4.50
SD 75 24 65% $4.00
KD 74 44 44% $3.00
MO 71 43 40% $2.50
BA-1 69 54 23% $1.50
RS 67 45 31% $2.00
BA-3 62 46 21% $1.50
BU 62 46 21% $1.50
BA-2 61 35 31% $2.00
10S 58 51 10% $1.00
WS 54 47 9% $1.00
ED 52 8 40% $2.50
06S 50 31 20% $1.50
RA 39 30 9% $1.00
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
15 3.2 Structural Deterioration
The following subsections detail the process and findings related to structural deterioration in this study. This includes the process and results of collecting, analyzing, and comparing deflection measurements and required overlay thicknesses. This data were used to calculate the corresponding cost of structural damage to pavements caused by utility cuts.
3.2.1 Field Data Collection
At each test site, NCE performed FWD testing in accordance with the California Test Method 356 (Caltrans 2020). During testing, the FWD delivered a nominal 9,000-pound impulse load to the pavement surface and measured the resulting pavement deflection using a geophone directly under the load. A minimum of 21 deflection measurements were taken at each of 4 measurement locations for each test site (Figure 8):
1. On the utility cut- along the centerline of the cut (1)
2. Two feet within the cut - “T-Arm” ( )
3. Two feet away from the cut - “Zone of Influence” ( )
4. Within the No-Cut Section - at least 10 feet away from the cut
Figure 8. Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Locations Since the City’s restoration standard requires a T-cut patch, the exact edge of the utility cut was unknown. NCE therefore tested 2 feet outside and inside of the edge of the patch to see if structural damage occurred around the restoration area near the edge. Additionally, coring was performed in the No-Cut Section, and the original asphalt pavement thickness was cored and measured.
3.2.2 Deflection Results
Comparing the deflection data across the 4 measurement locations shows the relative loss of structural capacity resulting from utility cuts. Figure 9 shows the average deflections for each test site labelled with the PCIs of each site’s No-Cut Section. Sites at which the deflections in the No-Cut Section and zone of influence were lower than the deflections in the Cut Section exhibited damage due to cuts, and are represented by red lines. Sites at which the deflections in the No-Cut Section and zone of influence were higher than the deflections in the Cut Section did not exhibit damage due to cuts, and are represented by green lines. At these sites the repair and restoration were performing well at the time of testing. Deflection in the zone of influence may be higher than on the cuts themselves because structure may not be adequately supported laterally, as explained in Section 1.1.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
16 Figure 9. Deflection Trends Organized by PCI of Sections Without Utility Cuts Based on the deflection data, 76.7% of test sites showed structural damage within the cut or zone of influence (red lines in Figure 9) while the remaining 23.3% showed structural improvement in the cut and zone of influence (green lines in Figure 9).
3.2.3 Required Overlay Thickness
Asphalt overlays are used to repair functional and structural deficiencies and restore pavement life. Existing pavement conditions and estimates of future traffic dictate the thicknesses of these overlays. Functional deficiency arises from any conditions that adversely affect the pavement user. These include poor surface friction and texture, hydroplaning and splash from wheel path rutting, and excessive weathering, raveling, and block cracking. Structural deficiency arises from any conditions that adversely affect the load-carrying capability of the pavement structure. These include inadequate thickness, loss of base or subgrade support, and moisture damage.
This section focuses on the structural deficiency of the sites due to the cuts. The required overlay thickness was calculated for each of the 4 measurement locations at each test site per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans 2020). Design inputs were as follows:
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
On Utility T-Arm Zone of
Influence
No-Cut Section
Average Deflection, mils
A/C-PCI 77
A/C-PCI 75
A/C-PCI 74
A/C-PCI 67
A/C-PCI 61
A/C-PCI 59
A/C-PCI 58
A/C-PCI 57
A/C-PCI 54
A/C-PCI 52
A/C-PCI 42
A/C-PCI 41
A/C-PCI 36
A/C-PCI 32
A/C-PCI 32
RES-PCI 85
RES-PCI 84
RES-PCI 75
RES-PCI 74
RES-PCI 71
RES-PCI 69
RES-PCI 67
RES-PCI 62
RES-PCI 62
RES-PCI 50
RES-PCI 61
RES-PCI 58
RES-PCI 54
RES-PCI 52
RES-PCI 39
No-Cut Deflection > Cut or 2-ft Off Cut Deflection; Cuts are performing well No-Cut Deflection < Cut or 2-ft Off Cut Deflection; Damage Due to Cuts
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
17 • TI – specific to each test site and based on the map that was provided by the City (Appendix B). • Existing AC thickness
o No-Cut Section – measured core thickness
o T-Arm Section – measured core thickness of the No-Cut Section o Zone of Influence – measured core thickness of the No-Cut Section o Cut Section – One inch thicker than measured core thickness of the No-Cut Section (based on City’s restoration standard)
• Deflection data – obtained through FWD testing
An example of a section exhibiting damage due to utility cuts is provided in Figure 10. Note that if a cut damages a pavement structure, then the Cut Section and/or zone of influence will require a thicker overlay than the No- Cut Section.
Figure 10 shows the results for the arterial Buchanan Street, where the Cut Section and its surrounding areas require thicker overlay than does the No-Cut Section. The zone of influence and the cut section require a 7-inch- thick overlay to withstand a TI of 8.0. The T-Arm showed the most structural damage at this test site.
Figure 10. Deflection and Required Overlay Thickness for Buchanan Street Figure 11 summarizes the differences in overlay thickness between the No-Cut Sections and either the Cut Sections, the T-Arms, or the zones of influence, whichever was greatest, for all test sites. The data are organized by the PCIs of the No-Cut Sections. The X-axis shows the functional class associated with the PCIs of the No-Cut Sections ranging from high to low.
• Red bars indicate test sites that require a thicker overlay at the cut, T-arm, or the zone of influence compared with the No-Cut Section, and indicate a loss in structural capacity.
7.0 7.5
7.0 4.251.4
72.7 55.9
27.7 0.0
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 6.0
7.0 8.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 On Utility T-Arm Zone of
Influence
No-Cut Section
Overlay Thickness, inch
Average Deflections, mils
Overlay Thickness, in Average Deflection, mils
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
18 • Blue bars indicate test sites that do not require a thicker overlay at the cut or the zone of influence compared with the No-Cut Section. This indicates that the restored cut is performing better than the No- Cut Section.
• Test sites shown without bars indicate that overlays of the same thicknesses (or no overlay) are required at all measurement locations.
The deflection measurements from Cut Sections and No-Cut Sections provide an initial comparative measure of structural deficiency. However, the required overlay thickness depends on the existing pavement thickness to support ongoing/future traffic under current deflection. The average core thickness among all test sites was found to be 7.3 inches for arterials/collectors and 4.9 inches for residentials, indicating a reasonably sound structural foundation for the design TI. Consequently, even though 76.7% of the 30 sites showed structural damage based on deflection data, the substantial in situ pavement thickness and the presence of a 6 inch layer (restoration standards) in the cut area necessitated a thicker overlay at only 67.0% of the sites to compensate for structural deficiencies. These 67.0% (20) of sites required an additional overlay of approximately 4-inches within the cut, T-Arm, or zone of influence to address the loss in structural capacity resulting from utility cuts.
Figure 11. Differences in Overlay Thickness
3.2.4 Damage Cost
lists the thicknesses of additional overlays required for all test sites. This represents the difference between the overlay thickness for the No-Cut Section and the maximum overlay thickness at the cut, T-arm, or zone of influence. The additional overlay thickness is zero if no overlay was required at any of the measurement locations or if the Cut Section and its surrounding areas were performing better than the No-Cut Section. The cost of the additional overlay is also provided in Table 4, and was calculated using the following typical costs based on rehabilitation projects performed in the City in year 2023:
.0
.0
.0
1.0 0.0
1.0 .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
7.0 A C PCI 77
A C PCI 7
A C PCI 7
A C PCI 7
A C PCI 1
A C PCI
A C PCI
A C PCI 7
A C PCI
A C PCI
A C PCI
A C PCI 1
A C PCI
A C PCI
A C PCI
R S PCI
R S PCI
R S PCI 7
R S PCI 7
R S PCI 71
R S PCI
R S PCI 7
R S PCI
R S PCI
R S PCI 1
R S PCI
R S PCI
R S PCI
R S PCI 0
R S PCI
DI R C I RLA THIC SS, I CH S
R LATI T CUT S CTI
. SIT S, C PCI
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
19 • Hot Mix Asphalt: $120.0 per ton
• Cold Plane Milling: $1.0 per square foot
• Other Costs (e.g., concrete repairs, ADA upgrades):
o Arterials/Collectors – 30% construction cost, 15% admin/construction management/design cost, and 10% contingency
o Residentials – 25% construction cost, 10% admin/construction management/design cost, and 10% contingency
Table 4. Additional Overlay Thickness and Corresponding Equivalent Cost Functional
Class
Site
Name
PCI
No-
Cut
Structural
Damage
Overlay
Needed at
No-Cut
Section
Max
Overlay
Needed at
Or Near Cut
Overlay
Needed Due to
Structural
Damage
Cost Of
Overlay, $/SF
Arterials/
Collectors
IN 77 Yes 4.8 7.5 Thicker $5.50
AC 75 Yes 0.3 1.5 Thicker $3.50
MS 74 Yes 2.9 4.5 Thicker $4.00
TS 67 Yes 0.0 0.0 -* $-
MB 61 Yes 0.0 5.5 Thicker $9.00
CA 59 Yes 5.2 6.5 Thicker $3.50
IA 58 No 7.5 4.5 Thinner** $-
CS 57 No 0.5 0.0 Thinner** $-
PA-1 54 Yes 1.1 1.5 Thicker $2.50
MA 52 No 5.7 4.0 Thinner** $-
PA-2 42 Yes 3.2 5.0 Thicker $4.00
SA 41 No 2.4 0.0 Thinner $-
ML 36 Yes 2.0 4.0 Thicker $4.50
HA 32 Yes 3.0 4.0 Thicker $3.00
BS 32 Yes 4.2 7.5 Thicker $6.00
Residentials
PL 85 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
MI 84 Yes 0.0 2.0 Thicker $4.00
SD 75 Yes 0.9 6.5 Thicker $8.50
KD 74 Yes 1.0 2.0 Thicker $3.00
MO 71 Yes 2.5 3.5 Thicker $3.00
BA-1 69 No 0.1 0.0 Thinner** $-
RS 67 Yes 0.0 0.0 - $-
BU 62 No 0.3 0.0 Thinner** $-
BA-3 62 Yes 0.0 3.0 Thicker $5.50
BA-2 61 Yes 0.0 2.0 Thicker $4.00
10S 58 Yes 0.0 0.0 -* $-
WS 54 Yes 0.1 2.0 Thicker $4.00
ED 52 Yes 4.5 6.0 Thicker $3.50
06S 50 No 0.9 2.0 Thicker $3.00
RA 39 Yes 0.6 3.5 Thicker $5.00
*No overlay thickness is required at the cut, T-arm, zone of influence, or No-Cut Section ** Thicker overlay is required at No-Cut Sections than at the Cut Section or its surrounding areas
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Field Evaluation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
20 3.2.5 Damage Location Assessment Around Utility Cuts Based on the deflection data measured at the 4 different locations for each site, most of the damage in utility cut areas is observed within the T-Arm, which is located 2 feet within the cut. This pattern of damage can be attributed to several factors related to the structural disruption caused by the utility cut itself. When a utility cut is made, the original pavement layers are disturbed, weakening the surrounding material's ability to effectively distribute loads. The T-Arm area, positioned at the transition zone between the undisturbed pavement and the repaired section, experiences significant stress concentrations as it absorbs most of the load transfer.
The analysis shown in Table 5 shows the number of damaged sites that controlled by the cut, the T-Arm and the Zone of Influence, where 39% of the sections exhibited damage at the T-Arm, followed by the Zone of Influence (30%) and on the cut conditions (30%) for a total of 23 sections.
Table 5. Damage Control Location Assessment
Deflection Measurement
Location Damage Count Percent Contribution
On Cut 7 30%
T-Arm 9 39%
Zone of Influence 7 30%
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Fee Implementation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
21 4 Fee Development
4.1 Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was performed on field evaluations to assess whether the difference in pavement performance between Cut Sections and No-Cut Sections was statistically significant. Specifically, for the field evaluation, NCE used paired t-tests to compare the PCIs and deflections of Cut Sections and No-Cut Sections within each PCI group. A statistically significant difference indicates that the pavement is likely to be impacted by utility cuts.
• A P-value < 0.05 (95% confidence level) indicates that the PCIs or deflections of the sections with cuts were significantly lower than the PCIs or deflections of sections without cuts. This means that there is a high probability that utility cuts are correlated with poorer pavement conditions. A P-value of ≥ 0.0 indicates that the differences in the PCIs or deflections of the sections with cuts and without cuts were not statistically significant.
Various PCI values were used to classify sections into PCI groups and these groups were analyzed to identify which, if any, were significantly impacted by utility cuts. Table 6 shows the results of the statistical analysis for the field evaluation. As indicated by the P-values, there is a significant difference either in PCI or deflection between the Cut and No-Cut Sections for all pavements except residentials with PCI below 50. This analysis indicates that pavement damage due to utility cuts is occurring on all test sites. While there is sufficient evidence from the statistical analyses of functional evaluation to support categorizing the data based on functional class and PCI, the same level of confidence is not held for the statistical analyses of the structural evaluation for arterials/collectors. This is because arterials/collectors usually have thicker pavement structures compared to residentials. Residential sections were grouped into PCIs above or below 70 for fee schedule calculations. Arterial/collector sections were grouped into PCIs above or below 60 for fee schedule calculations because only 2 arterial/collector sections had PCIs above 70.
Table 6. Statistical Analysis of Field Evaluation
Criteria P-value Significant
Difference PCI Deflection Min. of PCI and Deflection
All 0.000 0.001 0.000 Yes
Arterials/Collectors 0.000 0.077 0.000 Yes
Residentials 0.000 0.002 0.000 Yes
Arterials/
Collectors
PCI ≥ 70 0.043 0.163 0.043 Yes
PCI < 70 0.001 0.148 0.001 Yes
PCI ≥ 60 0.004 0.052 0.004 Yes
PCI < 60 0.008 0.246 0.008 Yes
PCI ≥ 50 0.001 0.186 0.001 Yes
PCI < 50 0.035 0.161 0.035 Yes
Residentials
PCI ≥ 70 0.002 0.043 0.002 Yes
PCI < 70 0.000 0.016 0.000 Yes
PCI ≥ 60 0.000 0.017 0.000 Yes
PCI < 60 0.036 0.025 0.025 Yes
PCI ≥ 50 0.000 0.004 0.000 Yes
PCI < 50 0.109 0.255 0.109 No
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Fee Implementation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
22 4.2 Fee Comparison by Evaluation Type
Both structural and functional deterioration caused by utility cuts are essential to evaluate in order to establish a fee for compensating those damages. The fees developed from the field evaluations are presented in Table 7. To address the damage to pavement resulting from utility cuts identified in both evaluations, NCE recommends the maximum fee for each category; the structural evaluation fee is based on the cost of additional overlay thickness required due to the cut, while the functional evaluation fee is derived from the cost equivalent of the reduced functional life. Based on the City's guidance, no fees are required for streets classified as failed (i.e., those with a PCI below 25).
Table 7. Fee ($/SF) Comparison Based on Evaluation
Functional Class PCI Group Fees ($/SF*)
Arterials/Collectors
PCI ≥ 60 $ 5.00
25 ≤ PCI < 60 $ 3.50
PCI < 25 $ 0.00
Residentials
PCI ≥ 70 $ 4.50
25 ≤ PCI < 70 $ 3.50
PCI < 25 $ 0.00
* The total square footage includes the zone of influence (2 ft outside the edge of the cut/T-arm).
4.3 Fee Implementation
4.3.1 Affected Cut Area Fee
The affected area includes the zone of influence (2 ft outside the edge of the cut/T-arm) as shown in Equation 1.
Zone of influence is considered for such calculation to capture the damage within the adjacent areas of the cut.
The affected cut area fee represents damage cost only for the affected area based on the cut size. The equation for estimating the fees is provided below in Equation 2.
Equation 1
𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑆𝐹) = (𝐶𝑢𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ + 2’ + 2’)(𝑇-𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ + 2’ + 2’) Equation 2
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 7 𝑥 𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑆𝐹)
4.3.2 Examples of Fee Implementation
Figure 12 presents examples of fee implementation on a residential street with a PCI ≥ 70. Per our review of the City’s network database, the typical length and width of a residential management section in the City is 7 0 feet by 30 feet, respectively.
As a part of the example shown in Figure 12, it was assumed that a cut of 10 feet x 10 feet was made within a section. For the second example, it was assumed that it was 10 ft. wide and extended for the entire length of the section (7 0 ft.). Also, both the cuts were made on a residential street section with a PCI ≥ 70. Thus, they will both be charged at $4.5/SF (per Table 7).
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Fee Implementation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
23 Figure 12. Examples of Fee Implementation for Typical Residential Street with PCI ≥ 70. * Based on the City’s PMS the typical length and width of a residential management section is 750 feet by 30 feet, respectively.
4.4 Fee Comparison with Other Agencies
Utility cut fees allow local agencies to recover the cost of pavement damage associated with underground utility work as the respective damage reduces the useful life of the damaged streets. Table 8 summarizes utility cut fees for agencies throughout California. These fees are calculated based on functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per square foot, are typically multiplied by the affected cut area to obtain a dollar value representing the damage done to the pavement. For the City of Riverside, the fees were calculated based on the functional classification and PCI range of the street. The City of Riverside fees are determined based on the total square footage of the cut plus the zone of influence area which is 2 feet outside the edge of the cut/T-arm (See section 4.3.1).
Table 8 shows that the proposed fee range for the City of Riverside aligns very closely with the fees imposed by several of the listed cities and counties. When compared with longitudinal cut fees from other agencies, the proposed utility cut fee for the City is similar to that of many of the other agencies. When comparing fees among different agencies, it is important to consider that the overall pavement condition and structure varies among agencies, and the performance of pavements with cuts is critical to the existing conditions.
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Fee Implementation City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
24 Table 8. Utility Cut Fee Comparisons
Agency Criteria Fee, $/SF Study by
Riverside
(Proposed Fees) Functional Class and PCI 3.5-5.0 NCE 2024 Anaheim PCI 3.60-11.60 NCE 2022
Davis Functional Class and PCI 1.04-1.51 NCE 2022
Pacifica Functional Class, Age of the Pavement, Size of the Cut 1.00-4.00 NCE 2021 Ukiah Functional Class, Age of the Pavement, Size of the Cut 0.50-4.00 NCE 2021 Santa Barbara County
(Under Review) Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.25-4.00 NCE 2023 Covina
(Under Review) Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.50-6.00 NCE 2024 Monterey Park
(Under Review) Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.25-2.00 NCE 2023 South San Francisco
(Draft) Functional Class, PCI, Size of the Cut 0.50-3.50 NCE 2023 San Francisco (City and County) Age of the Pavement 1.00-3.50 Marcus 1998 Los Angeles Functional Class 8.24-19.44 Shahin et al. 2017 Sacramento County, Elk Grove,
Santa Cruz Trench Depth, Functional Class, PCI, Type of Cut 1.80-11.82 Shahin et al. 1996 Santa Ana Functional Class, Age of the Pavement 10.00-36.00 Shahin et al. 1999 Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
Conclusion City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
25 5 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the structural and functional deterioration of pavements due to utility cuts, quantify the damage, and develop a fee to recover the associated costs.
The field evaluation utilized in this study was based on 30 sites in the City. The following conclusions were determined:
• Ninety-seven percent of the test sites were structurally or functionally damaged because of utility cuts. • Seventy-three percent of the test sites were both structurally and functionally damaged. • Of all sites, 76.7% exhibited structural damage and 23.3% exhibited structural improvements. • An average overlay thickness of 4 inches is needed to compensate for the loss in structural capacity. • Overall, pavements with cuts deteriorate more rapidly than pavements without cuts. An average condition reduction of 18 PCI points was observed when utility cuts were present. • Thirty percent of the test sites displayed damage beyond the edge of the cut, known as the "Zone of Influence (2 ft outside the edge of the cut/T-arm).
Finally, a fee schedule was developed using both evaluations to recover the full costs of repair for the damage caused by the cuts. The information required to implement this fee includes the functional class, PCI.
Functional Class PCI Group Fees ($/SF*)
Arterials/Collectors
PCI ≥ 60 $ 5.00
25 ≤ PCI < 60 $ 3.50
PCI < 25 $ 0.00
Residentials
PCI ≥ 70 $ 4.50
25 ≤ PCI < 70 $ 3.50
PCI < 25 $ 0.00
* The total square footage includes the zone of influence (2 ft outside the edge of the cut/T-arm).
Pavement Utility Cut Impact Fee Study
References City of Riverside, CA
Draft Report February 2025
26 6 References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2020. ASTM D6433: Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. California Test 356: Method of Test to Obtain Flexible Pavement Deflection Measurements for Determining Pavement Rehabilitation Requirements.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Highway Design Manual.
Chow, C.A. and V.B. Troyan. 1999. “Quantifying damage from utility cuts in asphalt pavement by using San rancisco’s pavement management data,” Transportation Research Record 1655, no. 1: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3141/1655-01.
Ghosh, Debaroti, Sharlan Montgomery Dunn, and Lisa Petersen. "Utility Cut Impact Assessment and Fee Development Using Pavement Management System." Transportation Research Record (2024):
03611981241287194.
Dunn, S.M., D. Ghosh, and M. Marshall. 2024. Impact Assessment and Damage Fee Development for Pavement Utility Cuts Using Functional and Structural Field Data. Transportation Research Record 0, no. 0. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241240752
Jensen, K.A., V.R. Schaefer, M.T. Suleiman, and D.J. White. 2005. “Characterization of utility cut pavement settlement and repair techniques,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
San Francisco Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.
Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.
Stevens, L., M.T. Suleiman, B.R. Schafer, H. Ceylan, and K.A. Videkovich. 2010. Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board. https://cdn- wordpress.webspec.cloud/intrans.iastate.edu/uploads/2018/03/online-TR-566-Utility-Cut-II-T2.pdf.
Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I.
Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.
Todres, H.A. and P. . Baker. 1 . “Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.” APWA Reporter 63 no.
10. Wilde, W.J., C.A. Grant, and P.K. Nelson. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. Office of Program Administration, Federal Highway Administration.
Appendix A
Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
MEMORANDUM
Date: 02/26/2025
To: City of Riverside
From: Debaroti Ghosh, Margot Yapp – NCE
Subject: Summary of Utility Cut Studies and Policies
Job Number: 879.02.30
INTRODUCTION
Utility companies often need to cut existing pavement s to access and service their underground equipment. Ideally, all underground utility maintenance would be performed prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction so that cuts are never made in new pavement structures. However, despite the best coordination, utility cuts cannot always be avoided because unanticipated work is often required to maintain essential public services.
Over the last 30 years , local agencies have be en interested in understanding and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance as well as the corresponding financial impacts. To obtain this information, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies (Todres and Baker 1996). Many such studies are performed in-house or by consulting companies and are therefore unpublished or difficult to access. These studies often use deflection testing, condition surveys, and statistical analyses to quantify reduced pavement performance as a loss in structural capacity and a decrease in pavement condition. To manage the identified impacts, many studies have recommended restoring additional area surrounding the cut, increasing the overlay thickness, or imposing a restoration fee on utility companies.
These studies and recommendations have led to an increase in public policies that 1) compensate local agencies for the loss of pavement life caused by utility cuts through a utility cut fee, and 2) achieve more acceptable performance of repair work following underground utility access and maintenance through rigorous utility cut restoration standards and moratoria, or “no cut”, periods.
This technical memorandum discusses the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance, details the importance of adequate utility cut restoration, and summarizes the policies in place by various California agencies to address pavement degradation caused by utility cuts.
February 26, 2025
IMPACT OF UTILITY CUTS
The impact of utility cuts on pavement performance can vary significantly based on site- and agency -specific information. Such variables can include the existing pavement condition, structure, and age ; location, orientation, and extent of the utility cut; environmental factors; traffic loads; and restoration practices and standards.
Quantification of utility cut impacts further depend on local maintenance treatments and costs. Therefore, to really understand the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed.
That said, underground utility work can damage pavements in t hree general ways as illustrated in Figure 1 . First, the act of c utting a pavement structure creates an easy - access point for water to enter the pavement structure and damage the underlying pavement layers. Second, the removal of the pavement layers creates a plane of weakness where the pavement structure may not be adequately supported laterally – particularly during underground utility maintenance, but also after restoration. Third, the quality of the repair may not match the adjacent pavement structure , thus introducing roughness into the pavement. Rough pavements can cause vehicles to bounce, which creates greater loads on the pavement and leads to more rapid deterioration (Tarakji 1995; Wilde et al. 2002).
Figure 1. Utility Cut Damage Mechanisms
These deterioration mechanisms reduce the condition and structural capacity of a pavement, which reduces the life of the pavement within and adjacent to the utility cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Multiple utility cuts on the same street or within a small area can magnify this impact (Department of Public Works 1998, Tarakji 1995).
Reduction in Pavement Life
In the mid-1990s, San Francisco completed a study on the effect of utility cuts on the life of pavement (Tarakji 1995) and confirmed that additional damage was caused. Other
February 26, 2025
cities, including Austin, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, conducted similar foundational studies and found that utility cuts not only reduced the expected life of the streets but consequently cost local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses (Arudi et al. 2000; Bodocsi et al. 1995 ; ERES 1990; NCE 2003; Peters 2002; Wilde et al. 1996).
For example, Bodocsi et al. (1995) reported that new asphalt pavement s, which are typically designed to last between 15 and 20 years, once cut can lose as much as 8 years of pavement life. Other studies performed in Austin, Anaheim, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Phoenix estimated between 15 and 20 percent reductions in pavement life due to utility cuts (AMEC 2002; CHEC 1997; IMS 1994; Shahin and Associates 2017; Wilde et al. 1996). For a typical pavement design life of 20 years, this represents a loss of 3 -4 years of pavement life.
Additional factors such as cold climates and multiple excavations can increase the impact of utility cuts. For example, u tility cuts in areas subject to freeze -thaw conditions were estimated to reduce pavement life by 20 percent (AMEC 2002; Stevens et al. 2010 ).
Streets with multiple excavations for utility work were estimated to reduce a pavement’s life by 30 to 55 percent (Shahin and Associates 2017; Tarakji 1995; Tiewater 1997).
Statistical data reported by the Department of Public Works in San Francisco (1998) showed that the p avement condition rating decreases as the number of utility cuts increases. For example, the pavement condition index (PCI) for a newer pavement was reduced from 85 to 64 as the number of utility cuts increased to 10 or more.
Zone of Influence
As previously mentioned, a utility cut can result in a loss of lateral support to the existing pavement structure surrounding the perimeter of the trench. This can cause the trench sidewalls to bulge into the trench and weaken the material under the existing pavement.
This weakened area is termed the zone of influence, is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Zone of Influence
February 26, 2025
Various studies have used deflection testing to investigate the loss of pavement strength near utility cuts, estimate the zone of influence, and provide recommendations on restoration (Bodosci et al 1995; Shahin 1999; CHEC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; NCE 2000, 2003). Such studies showed a substantial loss of strength in the zone of influence around the utility cut area (Stevens et al. 2010). For example, studies performed in Union City and Los Angeles showed that the deflection values within the zone of influence were 41- 74 percent higher than in uninfluenced pavement (CHEC 1998; Shahin and Associates 2017).
These studies also indicated that the zone of influence varies by agency and location but is most often 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench. Table 1 summarizes research estimating the zone of influence.
Table 1. Summary of Zone of Influence Research
Agency Investigator Publication
Year
Zone of Influence
from Trench Edge
(feet)
Alameda Co, CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000 5.5 Calgary, Canada Karim et al. 2014 3.3
Cincinnati, OH Bodosci et al. 1995 3
Iowa
Department of
Transportation
Stevens et al. 2010 4
Los Angeles, CA Shahin and Associates 2017 2.5 to 10
(average of 5.2)
San Mateo Co,
CA CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999 5
Seattle, WA Nichols Consulting Engineers 2000 At least 2 Springville, UT Guthrie et al. 2015 4
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998 4 to 7
An extensive field and laboratory study by Iowa State University researchers concluded that the loss of lateral support in the zone of influence is a critical factor in the restoration of utility trenches (Jensen et al. 2005).
February 26, 2025
IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY CUT RESTORATION
As discussed previously, utility cuts can affect pavement performance in and adjacent to the cut area. The excavation equipment and process can also damage the pavement adjacent to the cut (Stevens et al. 2010). Simply backfilling the excavated area will not restore and match the strength and performance of the original material. Therefore, for long-term pavement performance within and adjacent to utility cuts, adequate repair and restoration is necessary.
It is difficult to restore cut pavement to a condition and performance level matching the surrounding pavement. When the repaired pavement condition varies from the existing pavement condition, the result can be a rough surface. Even if the pavement surface is smooth and consistent at the time of the repair, the materials may settle and deteriorate differentially over time. This leads to surface roughness, which then leads to more rapid deterioration (Noel and Tevlin 2012; PEI 1996; Stevens et al. 2010; Wilde et al. 1996).
Utility cut restoration involves performing a treatment, in addition to adequate filling and compaction of the excavated area, to restore the pavement life and maintain the pavement’s structural capacity and performance. Restoration often includes a T-Cut as well as another treatment, such as an overlay or surface seal, that extends beyond the length of the T-Cut arm. This restoration combination is illustrated in Figure 3.
T-Cuts involve cutting back a portion of the pavement surface beyond the edge of the trench to better protect the zone of influence and bridge the plane of weakness. Such repairs have been found advantageous in the restoration of utility cut trenches by alleviating the effects of the lateral support loss due to the excavation (Peters 2002; Stevens et al. 2010 ). Research has shown that t he thickness of the restoration, the quality of materials used, and the placement and compaction methods of fill materials are key factors in ensuring strong pavement performance in future years (Jensen et al. 2005; Stevens et al. 2010 Todres and Baker 1996).
February 26, 2025
Figure 3. Example Restoration Plan.
Restoration Standards in California
Table 2 summarizes the restoration standards held by several city and county agencies throughout California. The specific restoration requirements vary depending on the length of the utility cut, existing PCI, functional classification, and age of the pavement.
Although the use of the T -Cut is widespread among these standards, the additional surface restoration requirements range from no additional treatment beyond the T-Cut to full lane replacements for the entire affected block. For example, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco require a full block restoration depending on the length of the utility cut. Other agencies require only 6 to 24 inches of restoration beyond the edge of the T- Cut. The most common restoration treatment in California is a mill and over lay to a minimum specified depth.
The final required restored pavement thickness also varies among agencies. These final thickness standards are included in Table 2 as the final asphalt thickness over the trench and provide insight into how standards vary throughout California. The typical requirement is for the new restored pavement to conform to the existing pavement thickness over the trench, but additional thickness is sometimes required.
February 26, 2025
Table 2. Summary of Restoration Standards in California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Alameda Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
Anaheim Yes
Arterials:
full-lane
width
Locals: 12
Locals with cut length
<650 ft: None
Locals with cut length
>651 ft: As indicated in
Restoration Treatment
Column
PCI ≥ 60: Slurry
Seal from curb to
curb
PCI<60: 2-in. Mill
and Overlay from
gutter to trench
limit
Existing thickness +
1.25 or
Match existing
thickness if ≥ 16 in.
Contra Costa
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +
1.25 Davis Yes 10
Restoration shall extend
10’ before first patch and
10’ beyond last patch and
be the full width of the
affected lanes
Slurry Seal Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Fremont
If Trench
Width
>24 in.
12 None NA
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
If no T-Cut, 12-15
Fresno Co Yes 6
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut
1.25-in. Mill and
Overlay Existing thickness
Long Beach Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Los Angeles Yes 12
If pavement age<8 Yrs,
restore 24 in. beyond the
edge of the T-Cut
1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
(or half the existing
asphalt thickness,
whichever is less)
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Los Angeles
Co Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
February 26, 2025
Table 2 Cont. Summary of Restoration Standards for California Agencies Agency T-Cut
Required
T-Cut Arm
Width
(in.)
Surface Restoration
Requirement Beyond
T-Cut
Restoration
Treatment
Final Asphalt
Thickness Over
Trench (in.)
Oakland Yes 12
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all
affected lanes for the
entire block
PCI >65: Slurry
Seal
PCI ≤ 65: Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6)
Sacramento Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness
(min of 4)
Sacramento
Co Yes 8
If pavement age<5 Yrs,
restore a minimum of 12
in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut
1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 6 on major
streets)
(min of 4 on minor
streets)
San
Francisco Yes 12
Minimum of 12 in.
beyond the edge of the
T-Cut
or
If cut length >0.25*block
length, restore all
affected lanes for the
entire block
2-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness
(min of 2)
San Diego
Co Yes
6-12
(Based on
Trench
Width)
6 in. beyond the edge of
the T-Cut
1.5-in. Mill and
Overlay
Existing thickness +1
(min of 4)
San Jose Yes 12 None NA Existing thickness +3
Santa Clara Yes 6 None NA Existing thickness (8-
10)
February 26, 2025
UTILITY CUT POLICIES
A detail ed 2002 report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration provide d methods that agencies can use to reduce and minimize the damage to streets due to the ever-increasing installation and maintenance activities of utility companies (Wilde et al. 2002). Specifically, the report presents three types of policies local agencies can use to improve the quality of utility cut repairs and promote coordination of facilities. These strategies are 1) incentive-based policies, 2) fee-based policies, and 3) regulation-based policies.
Incentive-based policies provide financial or other incentives for using trenchless technology where technically suitable, performing higher-quality pavement cut repairs, making smaller or less-damaging cuts, and coordinating with other utility companies to share trenches or underground resources.
Examples of f ee-based policies include requiring a deposit prior to beginning work to protect against poor repairs, a ssessing financial penalties for non -compliance with restoration standards or for failed repairs within a specified period, implementing a time- based lane rental fee to encourage utility companies to restore traffic access as quickly as possible , and collecting flat -rate or area -based fees to compensate for increased degradation associated with cutting and excavating pavement.
Regulation-based policies do not require fees or provide incentives, but place requirements on the contractor regarding quality of work, and /or restrictions on when and where trenching can be done. Examples include establishing moratorium periods that restrict utility cuts in newly resurfaced pavements for a specified time , r equiring pavement restorations to encompass a n area larger than the trench area, enhancing inspections, and enforcing restoration specifications.
Utility Cut Fees in California
Fee-based policies have been growing in popularity throughout California as way for local agencies to recoup the cost of pavement damage associated with poor performin g underground utility work. Table 3 summarizes several utility-cut fee schedules for various agencies throughout California. These fees are based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and /or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse). The fees, in dollars per area, are typically multiplied by the utility cut area to obtain a dollar value that represents the damage done to the pavement. In contrast to having a utility cut fee per unit area, the cities of Sacramento and Santa Barbara have fees per linear foot. This fee is multiplied by the length of linear feet cut rather than the affected area to obtain the total fee value.
February 26, 2025
Table 3. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Elk Grove
Trench Depth < 4 ft Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 70-100
3.90 (long.)
7.80 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
2.20 (long.)
4.40 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100
2.41 (long.)
4.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
1.18 (long.)
2.36 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
Trench Depth > 4 ft Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 70-100
5.91 (long.)
11.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
3.34 (long.)
6.68 (trans)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100
3.66 (long.)
7.32 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
1.80 (long.)
3.60 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
Los Angeles
Select Streets 19.44
Local Streets 8.24
Modesto All Streets
PCI 70-100 2.50
PCI 26-69 1.25
PCI 0-25 -
Patterson All Streets
PCI 70-100 7.30
PCI 50-69 5.25
PCI 0-49 -
Sacramento
(Under
revision –
update
anticipated
2022)
Longitudinal Cut
Age <5 3.50*
Age 5 to 10 3.00*
Age 10 to 15 2.00*
Age Over 15 1.00*
Transverse Cut
Age <5 7.00*
Age 5 to 10 6.00*
Age 10 to 15 4.00*
Age Over 15 2.00*
*Fee is per lineal ft instead of per square foot.
February 26, 2025
Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Sacramento
Co
Trench Depth < 4 ft Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay
PCI 70-100
3.90 (long.)
7.80 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
2.20 (long.)
4.4 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100
2.41 (long.)
4.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
1.18 (long.)
2.36 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
Trench Depth > 4 ft Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.
PCI 70-100
5.91 (long.)
11.82 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
3.34 (long.)
6.68 (trans)
PCI 0-25 -
All Other
PCI 70-100
3.66 (long.)
7.32 (trans.)
PCI 26-69
1.80 (long.)
3.60 (trans.)
PCI 0-25 -
San Diego
Arterial Streets
Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 1.95
Age 6-10 1.39
Age 11-15 0.84
Age 16-20 0.28
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 2.80
Age 6-10 2.01
Age 11-15 1.21
Age 16-20 0.41
Major Streets Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 0.97
Age 6-10 0.69
Age 11-15 0.41
Age 16-20 0.13
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 1.93
Age 6-10 1.38
Age 11-15 0.74
Age 16-20 0.28
February 26, 2025
Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
San Diego
Cont.
Collector Streets Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 1.10
Age 6-10 0.85
Age 11-15 0.61
Age 16-20 0.37
Age 21-25 0.13
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 3.94
Age 6-10 3.06
Age 11-15 2.19
Age 16-20 1.32
Age 21-25 0.45
Residential Streets
Dry Utilities
Age 0-5 1.34
Age 6-10 1.04
Age 11-15 0.74
Age 16-20 0.45
Age 21-25 0.15
Wet Utilities
Age 0-5 1.67
Age 6-10 1.30
Age 11-15 0.93
Age 16-20 0.56
Age 21-25 0.19
City and
County of
San
Francisco
All streets
Age 0-5 3.50
Age 6-10 3.00
Age 11-15 2.00
Age 16-20 1.00
Santa Ana
Arterials Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 13.68
Age 6-10 Years 12.11
Age 11-15 Years 11.39
Age 16-20 Years 9.11
Local Streets
Age of street since last repaving
Age 0-5 Years 9.27
Age 6-10 Years 8.24
Age 11-15 Years 7.74
Age 16-20 Years 6.98
Age 21-25 Years 6.21
Santa
Barbara Co Flat fee $0.75*
*Fee is per lineal ft instead of per square foot.
February 26, 2025
Table 3 Cont. Summary of Utility Cut Fees for California Agencies Agency Criteria Fee ($/SF)
Santa Cruz
Trench Depth < 4 ft Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of Construction
or Structural overlay
PCI 100 and 70
3.9 (long.)
7.8 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26
2.2 (long.)
4.4 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70
2.41 (long.)
4.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26
1.18 (long.)
2.36 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Trench Depth > 4 ft Major Streets or All Streets
within 5 years of construction
or structural overlay.
PCI 100 and 70
5.91 (long.)
11.82 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26
3.34 (long.)
6.68 (trans)
PCI 25 and 0 -
All Other Streets
PCI 100 and 70
3.66 (long.)
7.32 (trans.)
PCI 69 and 26
1.80 (long.)
3.60 (trans.)
PCI 25 and 0 -
Union City Flat fee 17.3
Some agencies allow fee exemptions if the utility work is performed on older pavement or if the work is performed before an upcoming rehabilitation. For example, the City and County of San Francisco waive the fee for utility work performed on pavements with PCIs less than 53 or a pavement age of at least 20 years. The City of Los Angeles does not require utility cut fees on pavements with rehabilitation scheduled within the next year.
February 26, 2025
Moratorium Standards in California
Regulation-based policies, particularly moratoria, have been passed by cities and counties to protect public infrastructure and preserve the life of streets (Wilde et al. 2002) .
Moratoria impose a time period after treatment during which utility or other companies may not perform trenching activities. Table 4 summarizes several California agencies with slurry and rehabilitation moratorium standards. If for some reason utility work during a moratorium period is deemed necessary, agencies often impose higher restoration standards and limits than those required after the moratorium period has expired.
For example, Los Angeles County only requires a surface restoration of 24 inches beyond the edge of the T -Cut for non-moratorium streets but requires that the whole block be repaved for moratorium streets. Such strict moratorium restoration standards encourage utility companies to perform underground utility maintenance prior to pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction and discourages utility work in new pavement structures.
February 26, 2025
Table 4. Summary of Moratorium Standards for California Agencies Agency
Slurry
Moratorium
(years)
Rehabilitation
Moratorium
(years)
Restoration Details if Moratorium Work
Approved
Anaheim 1 3
Extensive pavement restoration according to
the utility cut standard
Limits shall be determined by the City Engineer
Commerce 2 5
Pavement restoration shall be a length of not
less than 50 ft either side of the trench edge
lines, either perpendicular or parallel to the
curb line
Encinitas 3 5
Resurface at least the length of excavation
from curb to curb or from curb line to the
raised median
Longitudinal trenches – Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay over the entire affected lane or lanes
(from curb to curb or from curb to median
curb)
Transverse trenches - Extend T-Cut, grind and
overlay to 10 feet beyond each side of the
trench and over the entire affected lane
Los Angeles None 1 Repave the whole block
Los Angeles Co 2 2 Resurface the entire lane width
Oakland 5 5
Pavement restoration shall match or exceed
the most recent resurfacing pavement section
depth and material or as directed by the
Engineer
Sacramento Co 3 3
Slurry seal half of the roadway at locations
affected by the excavation for a minimum total
length of 1,000 feet
San Diego 3 5
Resurface the entire lane width from street
intersection to intersection and from curb to
curb
San Diego Co 3 3
Resurface the entire width of the affected road
and the method of resurfacing shall be the
same as adjacent pavement
San Francisco 5 5 Resurface all affected lanes for entire width of affected property frontages
February 26, 2025
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Interest in studying and quantifying the impact of utility cuts on road and street performance has increased over the last 30 years. Consequently, public agencies, as well as utility companies, have sponsored engineering investigations and studies to quantify the impact of utility cuts on pavement performance and estimate the corresponding financial impacts.
Research has shown that utility cuts can reduce pavement life by 15 to 55 percent, which consequently cost s local agencies millions of dollars in premature street repair and remediation expenses. Studies have also shown that underground utility work affects not only the excavated area, but often weakens the adjacent pavement. The affected pavement varies based on agency and location but is typically 4 to 5 feet from the edge of the trench.
To help restore some of the lost structural capacity and performance due to cutting the pavement, many agencies have set restoration standards. Restoration standards in California typically include a T -Cut along with a restoration treatment that may be as extensive as replacing the full lane for the entire affected block.
To recover the cost of pavement damage associated with performing underground utility work, many agencies impose utility cut fees. In California, these fees are typically based on factors including functional classification, pavement age, PCI, and/or utility cut depth and orientation (longitudinal or transverse).
As evidenced by the variety of studies, standards, policies, and fees, the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance can vary significantly based on site -and agency-specific information. Therefore, to really understand and quantify the impact of utility cuts on roadway performance for a particular agency, a site-specific study and analysis must be performed. In addition, utility cut fees should be updated regularly to reflect accurate and current damage costs.
February 26, 2025
REFERENCES
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2002. Evaluation of Pavement Cut Impacts. League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Association of Public-Private Utility Service Providers.
Arudi, R., Pickering, B., and Flading, J. 2000. Planning and Implementing a Management System for Street Pavements with Utility Cuts. Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of Cincinnati.
Bodocsi, A., Pant, P.D., Aktan, A.E., and Arudi, R.S. 1995. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Street Pavements. The Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati.
CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1997. Utility Cut Damage Assessment for the City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Department of Public Works.
CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999. Trench Cut Evaluation Study for San Mateo County. San Mateo County.
CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2000. Alameda County Trench Cut Study Final Report.
Alameda County.
Department of Public Works. 1998. The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets.
Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco and Blue-Ribbon Panel on Pavement Damage.
ERES International, Inc. 1990. The Effect of Utility Cut Patching on Pavement Performance in Phoenix, AZ.
Guthrie, W.S, Jackson, K.D., and Montgomery, S.R., and Eggett, D.L. 2015. Quantifying the Effect of Utility Cuts on the Remaining Service Life of Flexible Pavements in Northern Utah. City of Springville and Brigham Young University.
Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS), Inc. 1994. Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge for the City of Anaheim California, Arterial Highway and Local Streets.
Jensen, K. A., Schaefer, V. R., Suleiman, M. T., White, D. J. 2005. Characterization of Utility Cut Pavement Settlement and Repair Techniques . Proceedings of the 2005 Mid - Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa.
Karim, M., Rizvi, R., Henderson, V., Uzarowski, L., and Chyc-Cies, J. 2014. Effect ofUtility Cuts on Serviceability of Pavement Assets – A Case Study from the City of Calgary. City of Calgary and Golder Associates.
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2000. Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Seattle Streets. City of Seattle.
February 26, 2025
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 2003. Utility Trench Cut Study Final Report. City of Philadelphia Department of Streets.
Noel, E. and Tevlin, A. 2012. Street Preservation Ordinance and Damage Fee. City of San Diego Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.
Pavement Engineering Inc, (PEI). 1996. Utility Cut Impact Study for City of Oxnard.
Peters, T. 2002. City Combats Damage to City Streets Caused by Utility Cuts. Public Works Journal Corporation 133 (4).
Shahin, M.Y. 1999. Report Analyzing Proposed Trench Cut Fee Ordinance. Department of Public Works, Santa Ana.
Shahin and Associates. 2017. Street Damage Restoration Fee Study. City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Bureau of Street Services.
Stevens, L., Suleiman, M.T., Schafer, B.R., Ceylan, H., and Videkovich, K.A. 2010.
Investigation of Improved Utility Cut Repair Techniques to Reduce Settlement in Repaired Areas, Phase II. Iowa Department of Transportation and Transportation Research Board.
Tarakji, G. 1995. The Effects of Utility Cuts on the Service Life of Pavements in San Francisco. Volume I, Department of Public Works, San Francisco State University.
Tiewater, P. 1997. “How to Reduce Utility Trenching Costs.” Better Roads. April 1997, pp 18–20.
Todres, H.A. and Baker, P.E., 1996. Utilities Conduct Research in Pavement Restoration.
APWA Reporter, 63(10).
Wilde, W.J., R. O. Rasmussen , and R. Harrison. 1996. City of Austin Guide for a Comparative Cost Assessment of Utility Work Alternatives. Austin, TX.
Wilde, W.J., Grant, C.A., and Nelson, P.K. 2002. Manual for Controlling and Reducing the Frequency of Pavement Utility Cuts. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-02-%%%
February 26, 2025
Table R.1 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Alameda Co
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57573edf37013b15f0435124/t/5b2 434326d2a734942eb80b7/1529099326535/Design+Guidelines+SD- 2018Jun06.pdf
3/10/2021
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/10/2021 Contra Costa
Co
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29792/CU01- PDF?bidId=
3/10/2021
Davis https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8217 3/10/2021 Fremont https://www.fremont.gov/DocumentCenter/View/307/sd- 28_LongitudinalTrenchTransverseTrench?bidId=
3/10/2021
Fresno Co
(Page 293)
http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Std- Specifications-April-1-2011-approved-amended-1-1-12.pdf 3/10/2021
Long Beach
http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/media-
library/documents/resources/engineering/standard-plans/100-general- roadwork/section-127---trench-requirements-in-street-right-of-way--as-of- 11-13-17-
3/10/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/stdplans/s-400/S-477-2_B4778_%20_.pdf 3/10/2021 Los Angeles
Co
(Page 129)
https://pw.lacounty.gov/des/design_manuals/StandardPlan.pdf 3/10/2021 Oakland http://www2.oaklandnet.com/government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/DGP/index.htm 3/10/2021
(See City of Oakland Guidelines and Standards: Street Excavation Rules) Sacramento
(Page 42)
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/DOU/Specs- Drawings/Addendum%202_Final_042412.pdf
3/10/2021
Sacramento
Co
(Page 17)
https://saccountyspecs.saccounty.net/Documents/PDF%20Documents%20 2008/Drawings/Drawings.pdf
3/10/2021
San Francisco
(Page 27)
https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/PW-Order-187005-Signed.pdf 3/10/2021 San Diego Co
(Page 38)
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdcfa/documents/pre vention/design-standards.pdf
3/10/2021
San Jose
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=37037
3/10/2021
(Cross Section data from personal correspondence with Lorina Popescu, City of San Jose)
Santa Clara
(Page 31)
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=70118 3/10/2021 February 26, 2025
Table R.2 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Elk Grove https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ElkGrove/html/ElkGrove12/ElkGrove 1209.html
3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/StdFeeList/StdFeeList.pdf 3/11/2021 Modesto https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/4817/Development -Fee-Schedule---Engineering_Encroachment 3/11/2021
Patterson https://www.ci.patterson.ca.us/823/Trench-Cut-Permit-and-Program- Informatio 3/11/2021
Sacramento Resolution No. 97-537 A Resolution Establishing Trench Cut Cost Recovery Fees -
Sacramento
Co
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=12-12_09- 12_09_030&frames=on 3/11/2021
San Diego https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/stdamagefeeincrease.pdf 1/19/2022 City and
County of San
Francisco
https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Excavation_Code.pdf 3/11/2021 Santa Ana
https://www.santa-ana.org/sites/default/files/finance/budget/2020- 2021/June%2016/Proposed%20Misc.%20Fees%20Schedule_COMBINED.06 .16.20_FINAL.pdf
1/12/2022
Santa Barbara
County https://countyofsb.org/pwd/asset.c/224 3/11/2021 Santa Cruz
http://sccounty01.co.santa-
cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2003/200 30401-211/PDF/035.pdf
3/11/2021
Union City CHEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Trench Cut Fee Evaluation Study for the City of Union City. City of Union City, Department of Public Works -
February 26, 2025
Table R.3 References
Agency Reference Date
Accessed
Anaheim https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/22954/132 3/11/2021 Commerce Personal correspondence with Daniel Hernandez, City of Commerce 3/11/2021 Encinitas https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment- 2-Resolution-Exhibit-A_clean.pdf 3/11/2021
Los Angeles https://eng2.lacity.org/techdocs/permits/7_3.pdf 3/11/2021 Los Angeles
Co
https://pw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?Action=getAnswers&FaqI D=JCMtOzVTUCAgCg%3D%3D&Theme=default&ShowTemplate=#:~:text=T he%20County%20has%20a%20two,date%20of%20the%20resurfacing%20p roject.
3/11/2021
Oakland https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod eId=TIT12STSIPUPL_CH12.12EX 3/11/2021
Sacramento
Co https://sacdot.saccounty.net/Pages/Trenchingandroadcutmoratorium.aspx 3/11/2021 San Diego https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment- 1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Diego Co https://www.biasandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Attachment- 1-San-Diego-County-and-City-Trenching-Moratorium-Information.pdf 3/11/2021 San Francisco https://www.sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Moratorium%20Streets. pdf 3/11/2021
Appendix B
City’s Traffic Index (TI) Map
Appendix C
City’s Utility Cut Restoration Standards
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTCITY OF RIVERSIDE
PAVEMENT MORATORIUMFIVE
YEAR MORATORIUM FOR NEW PAVEMENT AND ONE
YEAR FOR SLURRY SEALMORATORIUM PERIOD BE*INS AFTER NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOC
+AS BEEN FILEDTRENC+IN* IN STREETS UNDER MORATORIUM RE4UIRES PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM T+E CITY EN*INEERT+E LIMITS OF RESURFACIN* WILL BE MORE E;TENSIVE FOR STREETS UNDER MORATORIUM AS INDICATED +EREINCONTRACTORS S+ALL VERIFY MORATORIUM STATUS PRIOR TO COMMENCIN* WORKCLICK +I*+LI*+TED LINK BELOW OR VISIT T+E PUBLIC WORKS WEBPA*E TO C+ECK MORATORIUM STATUSZZZULYHUVLGHFDJRYSDYLQJPDS “ ”
®
38%/,&:25.6'(3$570(17&,7<2)5,9(56,'(
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTCITY OF RIVERSIDE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTCITY OF RIVERSIDE